Quality in the provision of headache care. 1: systematic review of the literature and commentary

被引:16
|
作者
Peters, Michele [1 ]
Perera, Suraj [2 ]
Loder, Elizabeth [3 ]
Jenkinson, Crispin [1 ]
Gouveia, Raquel Gil [4 ]
Jensen, Rigmor [5 ]
Katsarava, Zaza [6 ,7 ]
Steiner, Timothy J. [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Dept Publ Hlth, Oxford OX3 7LF, England
[2] Minist Hlth Care & Nutr, Colombo, Sri Lanka
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Headache & Pain, Dept Neurol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Hosp Luz, Headache Outpatient Clin, Lisbon, Portugal
[5] Glostrup Cty Hosp, Dept Neurol, Danish Headache Ctr, Glostrup, Denmark
[6] Univ Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany
[7] Evangelic Hosp, Unna, Germany
[8] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Neurosci, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
[9] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Neurosci, London, England
来源
JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN | 2012年 / 13卷 / 06期
关键词
Headache; Quality of care; Quality indicators; Systematic review; Global Campaign against Headache; MULTIDISCIPLINARY TREATMENT; HEALTH-CARE; MANAGEMENT; EMERGENCY; BURDEN; SPECIALIST; MIGRAINE; MODEL; EFFICACY; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1007/s10194-012-0466-1
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Widely accepted quality indicators for headache care would provide a basis not only for assessment of care but also, and more importantly, for its improvement. The objective of the study was to identify and summarize existing information on such indicators: specifically, did indicators exist, how had they been developed, what aspects of headache care did they relate to and how and with what utility were they being used? A systematic review of the medical literature was performed. A total of 32 articles met criteria for inclusion. We identified 55 existing headache quality indicators of which 37 evaluated processes of headache care. Most were relevant only to specific populations of patients and to care delivered in high-resource settings. Indicators had been used to describe overall quality of headache care at a national level, but not systematically applied to the evaluation and improvement of headache services in other settings. Some studies had evaluated the use of existing disability and quality of life instruments, but their findings had not been incorporated into quality indicators. Existing headache care quality indicators are incomplete and inadequate for purpose. They emphasize processes of care rather than structure or outcomes, and are not widely applicable to different levels and locations of headache care. Furthermore, they do not fully incorporate accepted evidence regarding optimal methods of care. There is a clear need for consensus-based indicators that fully reflect patients' and public-health priorities. Ideally, these will be valid across cultures and health-care settings.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 447
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Quality in the provision of headache care. 1: systematic review of the literature and commentary
    Michele Peters
    Suraj Perera
    Elizabeth Loder
    Crispin Jenkinson
    Raquel Gil Gouveia
    Rigmor Jensen
    Zaza Katsarava
    Timothy J. Steiner
    The Journal of Headache and Pain, 2012, 13 : 437 - 447
  • [2] Quality in the provision of headache care. 2: defining quality and its indicators
    Michele Peters
    Crispin Jenkinson
    Suraj Perera
    Elizabeth Loder
    Rigmor Jensen
    Zaza Katsarava
    Raquel Gil Gouveia
    Susan Broner
    Timothy Steiner
    The Journal of Headache and Pain, 2012, 13 : 449 - 457
  • [3] Quality in the provision of headache care. 2: defining quality and its indicators
    Peters, Michele
    Jenkinson, Crispin
    Perera, Suraj
    Loder, Elizabeth
    Jensen, Rigmor
    Katsarava, Zaza
    Gouveia, Raquel Gil
    Broner, Susan
    Steiner, Timothy
    JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN, 2012, 13 (06): : 449 - 457
  • [4] Clinical audit as a quality improvement tool in emergency care. A systematic literature review
    Specchia, M. L.
    Calabro, G. E.
    Mogini, V.
    Zeffiro, V.
    Favale, M.
    Ricciardi, W.
    de Waure, C.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2016, 26 : 333 - 333
  • [5] Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in burns care. A systematic review
    Danilla, Stefan
    Wasiak, Jason
    Searle, Susana
    Arriagada, Cristian
    Pedreros, Cesar
    Cleland, Heather
    Spinks, Anneliese
    BURNS, 2009, 35 (07) : 956 - 961
  • [6] A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain
    Wensing, M
    Jung, HP
    Mainz, J
    Olesen, F
    Grol, R
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1998, 47 (10) : 1573 - 1588
  • [7] Integration of palliative care into intensive care. Systematic review
    Adler, K.
    Schlieper, D.
    Kindgen-Milles, D.
    Meier, S.
    Schwartz, J.
    van Caster, P.
    Schaefer, M. S.
    Neukirchen, M.
    ANAESTHESIST, 2017, 66 (09): : 660 - 666
  • [8] Spiritual care provision to end-of-life patients: A systematic literature review
    Batstone, Elizabeth
    Bailey, Cara
    Hallett, Nutmeg
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2020, 29 (19-20) : 3609 - 3624
  • [9] Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: A systematic review of the literature
    Suther, S
    Goodson, P
    GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 5 (02) : 70 - 76
  • [10] Identification of clinical decision support systems evaluated in primary care. A systematic review of the literature
    Raynaud, Camille
    Letrilliart, Laurent
    Meunier, Pierre-Yves
    EXERCER-LA REVUE FRANCOPHONE DE MEDECINE GENERALE, 2023, (189): : 28 - 35